Single-dose fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with cisplatin therapy: randomized, double-blind study protocol--EASE.

PURPOSE: Addition of aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), to an ondansetron and dexamethasone regimen improves prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV), particularly during the delayed phase (DP; 25 to 120 hours). Therefore, recommended antiemetic regimens include multiple-day NK1RA administration. Preliminary data suggested that single-dose aprepitant before chemotherapy could provide CINV protection throughout the overall risk phase (OP; 0 to 120 hours). This study compared a 3-day oral aprepitant schedule to a regimen containing a single dose of the intravenous NK1RA fosaprepitant. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, active-control design was used to test whether fosaprepitant is noninferior to aprepitant. Patients receiving cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m(2) for the first time received ondansetron and dexamethasone with a standard aprepitant regimen (125 mg on day 1, 80 mg on day 2, 80 mg on day 3) or a single-dose fosaprepitant regimen (150 mg on day 1). The primary end point was complete response (CR; no vomiting, no rescue medication) during OP. Secondary end points were CR during DP and no vomiting during OP. Accrual of 1,113 evaluable patients per treatment arm was planned to confirm noninferiority with expected CR of 67.7% and noninferiority margin of minus 7 percentage points. RESULTS: A total of 2,322 patients were randomly assigned, and 2,247 were evaluable for efficacy. Antiemetic protection with aprepitant and fosaprepitant was equivalent within predefined bounds for noninferiority. Both regimens were well tolerated, although more frequent infusion site pain/erythema/thrombophlebitis was seen with fosaprepitant relative to aprepitant (2.7% v 0.3%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Given with ondansetron and dexamethasone, single-dose intravenous fosaprepitant (150 mg) was noninferior to standard 3-day oral aprepitant in preventing CINV during OP and DP.

Mandating nurse staffing in Pennsylvania: more than a numbers game.

Current federal and state legislation for mandated nurse staffing falls short of the ideal plan. Hospital nurse-staffing ratios are inadequate to maintain patient safety and quality nursing care. Mandating fixed nurse-to-patient ratios does not accommodate changes in patients' needs, evolving technology, and experience of nursing staff and will be immediately obsolete. Ideal measurement of nurse staffing incorporates nurse skill level and patient acuity. The Pennsylvania State Nurses Association supports legislation to establish patient acuity-based nurse staffing.

Aprepitant in adolescent patients for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of efficacy and tolerability.

BACKGROUND: The neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant, plus a 5HT3 antagonist and corticosteroid is well-tolerated and effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults but has not been formally assessed in adolescents. PROCEDURE: Patients age 11-19 years old receiving emetogenic chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to aprepitant triple therapy (aprepitant [A] 125 mg p.o., dexamethasone [D] 8 mg p.o., and ondansetron [O] 0.15 mg/kg i.v. t.i.d. day 1; A 80 mg, D 4 mg, and O 0.15 mg/kg t.i.d. day 2; A 80 mg and D 4 mg day 3; and D 4 mg day 4) or a control regimen (D 16 mg and O 0.15 mg/kg t.i.d. day 1; D 8 mg and O 0.15 mg/kg t.i.d. day 2; and D 8 mg days 3 and 4). The primary endpoint was the difference in drug-related adverse events during and for 14 days following treatment. Efficacy and aprepitant pharmacokinetics were assessed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between aprepitant (N = 28) and control (N = 18) groups. Febrile neutropenia was more frequent in the aprepitant group (25% vs. 11.1%). Complete response (CR) rates were 35.7% for aprepitant triple therapy versus 5.6% for the control group. Mean plasma aprepitant AUC(0-24 hr) and C(max) on day 1 and mean trough concentrations on days 2 and 3 were consistently lower compared to historical data obtained from healthy adults; however, the differences were not clinically significant. CONCLUSION: Aprepitant triple therapy was generally well tolerated; CR were greater with aprepitant, although not statistically significant. Pharmacokinetics suggest that the adult dosing regimen is appropriate for adolescents.

Autosomal dominant infantile gastroesophageal reflux disease: exclusion of a 13q14 locus in five well characterized families.

OBJECTIVES: A genetic locus for pediatric reflux was proposed on chromosome 13q14, but is unconfirmed in independent kindreds. We sought to test this locus in families with multiple affected infants from our database of well characterized infants with reflux. METHODS: We screened the database for families with multiple affected infants. Affected proband phenotype required histological esophagitis; affected sibling/cousin phenotype required a threshold score on a diagnostic questionnaire. Screened families were reduced to five based on pedigree, consent, and phenotypic clarity. Linkage of the phenotype with the four previously reported markers (D13S218, D13S1288, D13S1253, and D13S263) was tested, using an autosomal dominant, 70% penetrance model. Linkage required logarithm-of-odds score > or = 3. RESULTS: Of 54 individuals in the five probands' generation, 21 (39%) were affected based on questionnaire, of whom nearly one half also had histological confirmation of esophagitis. Linkage to the defined region was excluded for the five families by two-point LOD scores (-1.47 at D13S218, -1.32 at D13S1288, -3.43 at D13S1253, and -3.92 at D13S263) and by multipoint (multipoint LOD scores less than -2 between D13S218 and D13S263) linkage analysis. No family demonstrated even suggestive positive linkage (i.e., LOD score >1). CONCLUSIONS: In five rigorously phenotyped families with autosomal dominant pattern infantile reflux, we excluded genetic linkage to the region of 13ql4 previously identified responsible for an autosomal dominant form of pediatric reflux. These results suggest genetic heterogeneity, possibly related to phenotypic heterogeneity, in familial pediatric gastroesophageal reflux disease.